Project

General

Profile

Bug #16820

LEGAL is out of sync

Added by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) 6 months ago. Updated 2 months ago.

Status:
Open
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Target version:
-
[ruby-core:98081]

Description

At the very beginning of LEGAL, it reads:

All the files in this distribution are covered under either the Ruby's
license (see the file COPYING) or public-domain except some files
mentioned below.

This means that the exception list must be comprehensive. If we miss someone else's software there, it would be automatically made belong to matz. This is very bad.

However this is happening now.

Unclear situation for benchmark

For instance, benchmark/so_concatenate.rb comes with no license agreements. Yet as we read its contents, there is almost no doubt that it is not covered by the Ruby's license.

The problem is that the URL that was once written inside the file is lost. Our git log tells nothing. This and other files under the directory have permanently lost their origin.

BSD licensed libraries

Take a look at this search result:

% git grep -i 'BSD-2-Clause' | wc -l
43

None of them are listed in LEGAL.

Programs owned by IBM

% git grep 'International Business Machines' | wc -l
4

The four occurrences of the name IBM does not include LEGAL. Also, I wonder if they are actually compatible with Ruby's license.

LGPL portions

% git grep 'the GNU LGPL' | wc -l
11

It seems racc is complicated.

  • racc.gemspec says s.licenses = ["MIT"].
  • It however has some files that are LGPL.
  • It also has some files that are under Ruby's license.

Which one should we believe? If we mix all of them, the library as a whole must be under LGPL. Am I right?


Related issues

Related to Ruby master - Misc #12529: LEGAL file covering all the license information within RubyClosedhsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA)Actions
Related to Ruby master - Bug #12762: missing links in LEGALClosedhsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA)Actions
Related to Ruby master - Bug #12598: List files with Unicode license in LEGAL fileClosedduerst (Martin Dürst)Actions
Related to Ruby master - Feature #12550: List files with SIL license in LEGAL fileClosedhsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA)Actions
Related to Ruby master - Bug #12549: List files with CC0 license in LEGAL fileClosedhsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA)Actions
#1

Updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) 6 months ago

  • Related to Misc #12529: LEGAL file covering all the license information within Ruby added
#2

Updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) 6 months ago

  • Related to Bug #12762: missing links in LEGAL added
#3

Updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) 6 months ago

  • Related to Bug #12598: List files with Unicode license in LEGAL file added
#4

Updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) 6 months ago

  • Related to Feature #12550: List files with SIL license in LEGAL file added
#5

Updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) 6 months ago

  • Related to Bug #12549: List files with CC0 license in LEGAL file added

Updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) 6 months ago

Should we update the sentence about dual license with BSD-2-Clause to LEGAL file? I'm not sure what your expectation.

#7

Updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) 6 months ago

  • Description updated (diff)

Updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) 6 months ago

hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) Did you want to change license of those libraries from Ruby's to "BSD only"? Then we should list up all of them in LEGAL. If you didn't intend to change their license (== they are still dual-licensed), then their gemspec shall be updated to reflect that info like s.licenses = ["Ruby", "BSD-2-Clause"]. Note that "Ruby" is a valid SPDX ID that you can write there.

Updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) 6 months ago

I see.

If you didn't intend to change their license (== they are still dual-licensed), then their gemspec shall be updated to reflect that info like s.licenses = ["Ruby", "BSD-2-Clause"].

We should update it to gemspec files especially the default gems.

Updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) 6 months ago

OK, thank you for clarification. Then we don't have to bother them in LEGAL.

Updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) 2 months ago

I fixed the licenses field in the default gems at https://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/8fb02b7a97

Updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) 2 months ago

Great! I have also updated LEGAL in https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/3082

The situation is much better than before now. Thank you.

#13

Updated by sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada) 2 months ago

  • Description updated (diff)

Updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) 2 months ago

racc.gemspec says s.licenses = ["MIT"].

It's my mistake. It should be use "Ruby" license. I fixed at https://github.com/ruby/racc/commit/f600effadaec9e389fc336309021640c565c7232.

It however has some files that are LGPL.
It also has some files that are under Ruby's license.

racc uses Ruby license now. If some files show LGPL, We should update it to Ruby's license.

Also available in: Atom PDF